On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 04:28:48PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote:
> On 03/28/12 18:59, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> >>> static struct platform_device em_x270_gps_userspace_consumer = {
> >>> .name = "reg-userspace-consumer",
> >>> .id = 0,
> >>> static struct platform_device em_x270_gprs_userspace_consumer = {
> >>> .name = "reg-userspace-consumer",
> >>> .id = 1,
> > -REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo19, "reg-userspace-consumer", "vcc gprs");
> > +REGULATOR_CONSUMER(ldo19, "reg-userspace-consumer.1", "vcc gprs");
> Well, I thought of this solution, but I don't like it, as it makes
> the whole thing very fragile and sensitive to the reg-userspace-consumer
> platform device registration order and count, isn't it?
> (That's why I proposed to use NULL...).
No the platform device numbering should be totally stable for a given
board unless someone deliberately sets out to renumber them - the .ids
are explicitly assigned by the board when it registers the device.
> So, Mark, how do you think the above issues can be handled without
> putting NULL into the dev_name?
It shouldn't be a problem I think.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
